Delhi High Court
Dwarka Sector 6 Vendor ... vs Mcd & Ors on 16 February, 2017
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 80/2016
% Date of Judgment: 16th February, 2017
DWARKA SECTOR 6 VENDOR ASSOCIATION ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Chetan Shandilya, Advocate.
Versus
MCD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for
MCD.
Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak,
Advocate with Mr. Santosh Kumar
Pandey & Ms. Shubhra Parashar,
Advocates for SDMC.
Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC for
GNCTD with Ms.Sona Babbar & Ms.
Pritika Kumar, Advocates with Insp.
Adith Lily and SI Mukesh Kumar of
PS Dwarka (South).
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this LPA is to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge dated 15.10.2015 by which the writ petition filed by the
appellant association seeking a direction to the respondents not to
dispossess the members of the appellant association from their
hawking sites i.e. Dwarka Sector-6 Market, New Delhi has been
dismissed.
2. It is pointed out that the appellant association comprises of 72
members, but for the present only 35 members are in existence.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that although they have been
squatting at different areas, however they were illegally removed by
the respondent DDA on 27.08.2015. Learned counsel submits that the
appellants are required to be protected in view of the Section 3 (3) of
the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Act, 2014, as per which no street vendor is to be evicted till
a survey is completed and certificate of vending is issued to all the
street vendors. He submits that samples of challans issued to the
members of the association have been placed on record to show that
the appellants have been vending since the year 2001. Learned
counsel submits that although the learned Single Judge had dismissed
the writ petition on the ground that the Town Vending Committee is in
the process of being constituted. In fact, the Town Vending
Committee is still not in place and in case the appellants are not
allowed to vend, they would suffer financial hardships as this is their
only source of livelihood.
4. We are informed that the writ petition was disposed of on the first date
of hearing itself and thus no response was filed by any of the
respondents. The position is no different today as there is no response
by any of the statutory bodies, who have been impleaded as parties.
5. This petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent
no. 6 (Central Market Sector-6 Dwarka Welfare Association), which
was impleaded as a party by an order dated 26.07.2016.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submits that the appellants are
encroachers on public land. They have no right to vend or hawk in an
area, which has been declared by the MCD as "No Vending Zones"
and "No Hawking Zones". Additionally, it is submitted that along
with the LPA, documents pertaining to only five members of the
appellant association have been filed, although an impression was
created that the documents pertaining to all the members have been
placed on record. He further submits that by an order 26.07.2016 a
direction was issued to the petitioner to file further documents,
however the said documents, which have been placed on record, are
forged and fabricated, which would be evident from the fact that the
receipts filed at page no. 247, 249 and 259 pertain to different persons
but all the particulars on the receipts are same except the name of the
persons. Counsel for respondent no. 6 further submits that neither the
writ petition was maintainable nor the present LPA is maintainable as
the respondent no. 6 has instituted an earlier writ petition with respect
to the encroachments of the same area and same market, being WP (C)
No. 3521/2006. It is contended that when the aforesaid writ petition
came up for hearing on 21.09.2006, the following order was passed:
"Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 shall file a supplementary
affidavit indicating the plan/action to remove encroachment, on
systematic basis, from the public land in the markets in question.
Let the affidavit be filed within four weeks. List on 5th February,
2007."
7. Counsel contends that remedial action was taken and the market was
cleared of all encroachments, which is evident upon reading the
subsequent order passed on 14.02.2008, which reads as under:
"Status report has been filed by both DDA as well as Delhi Police.
The photographs show that encroachments have been removed.
Details of FIR registered against persons who had encroached
upon footpath and other land adjacent to the market have been
enclosed with the affidavit.
In view of the action taken nothing survives in the present
writ petition. However, it is directed that the respondent/DDA and
Delhi Police will continue to make periodical inspections of the
area to ensure that footpath and other areas are not encroached
upon."
8. It is submitted that the appellants in connivance with officials of the
respondents continued to flout the orders and the appellants, who are
part of the strong mafia, continue to occupy and obstruct public areas
in utter defiance of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 3521/2006, which
order was never challenged and has thus attained finality. It is also
contended by the counsel for respondent no. 6 that the documents
sought to be relied upon by the appellants are unreliable and in fact do
not support the case of the appellants that they have been vending at
the area in question since 2001.
9. Attention of the court is drawn to paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Crl. Misc.
Application No. 17488/2016 filed by the respondent no. 6 to show that
false and misleading statements have been made by the appellant. The
paragraphs read as under: -
"3. That the Appellant filed false affidavit, made false statements and
fabricated documents when he filed the present LPA, which is demonstrated
below: -
S.No. STATEMENT MADE BY ITS FALSITY PROVEN FROM
APPELANT/BAL KISHAN COURT RECORD
1. Mr. Bal Kishan filed a list of
(a) Scrutiny of these alleged documents
72 persons & annexed some showed that even these were with
alleged documents in supportrespect to only 5 persons, which was
[Annexures P2(Colly) &
shown for 72 persons and in this garb
P3(Colly) Pg 80 to 96 of LPA]
new encroachment was being attempted.
and described them as below:(b) Mr. Bal Kishan had shown no locus
Annexure P2(Colly): "Copies to represent anyone or file any legal
of Challan Receipts of the case before any court, let alone 72
Vendors" persons and LPA was filed giving some
Annexure P3(Colly): address of Nangloi, which the petition
"Challan by MCD and itself stated as residence address of Mr.
Bal Kishan.
confiscation of the items from
which they have been (c) no vending rights were ever granted
vending" in this market area, as it is a Non
Vending/Non hawking area and rather a
Zero Tolerance Zone.
(d) there was not even one alleged
document in favour of Bal Kishan.
2. That 72 persons were (a) When this litigation started, there
operating as vendors in were no vendors in this market area and
Dwarka Sec. market from the Bal Kishan himself submitted it, which
year 2001 was observed by High Court in
impugned Order dt. 15.10.2015 in
W.P(C) No. 9042/2015.
" But as per averments in paras 25 and
26 of the petition the petitioners have
already been dispossessed on
27.08.2015."
(b) Delhi High Court vide Order dt
21.09.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 3521/06 had
directed Govt. authorities to remove all
encroachments in markets at Sector 6 &
10, Dwarka, N. Delhi and to continue
doing so on systematic basis.
(c) Delhi High Court vide Order dt.
14.02.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 3521/2006
had observed that there was no
encroachment in this market and further
directed DDA & Delhi Police to make
periodical inspection of market area &
ensure that footpath & other areas are
not encroached upon by unscrupulous
elements. These Orders have been
placed on record in present proceedings.
(d) Respondent No.6 had filed
photographs & video showing there are
no existing vendors in this market area
3. Mr. Bal Kishan claimed There is no such association or entity
himself to be President of an named Dwarka Sector-6 Vendors
association named Dwarka Association. Nothing was placed on
Sector-6 Vendors Association record to substantiate Mr. Bal Kishan
claiming to represent 72 projecting himself as its alleged
persons President.
...
7. That the scrutiny of the Affidavit 10th August 2016 filed by Mr. Bal Kishan and
copies of documents annexed, has revealed further false statements by Appellant who
has filed another false affidavit on oath before this Hon'ble Court and that Appellant
and his accomplices have further forged & fabricated documents to play fraud upon
this Hon'ble Court, as detailed below:
7.1: False statements made in the affidavit
S.No. STATEMENT MADE/ ITS FALSITY PROVEN FROM COURT
DOCUMENTS FILED BY RECORD
APPELANT
1. Appellant in para 4 of (a) As shown above, when this litigation
affidavit has stated: started, there were no vendors in this market
"I say that the appellant area as submitted by Bal Kishan himself.
association is now filing (b) Mr. Bal Kishan filed a list of 72 persons
proof of 37 vendors out of 72 & annexed some alleged documents in
vendors because rest of the support as "Copies of Challan Receipts of
vendors are not having any the Vendors" AND "Challan by MCD and
supported documents ......." confiscation of the items from which they
have been vending"
(c) After the falsity of this statement was
exposed, now Appellant says only 37
vendors have any proofs, which means 35
out of 72 vendors never had any supporting
documents, as was being falsely claimed.
2. Appellant now claims that Scrutiny of even these documents shows
37 vendors have supported that even this is false as they are not even 37
documents and the nature of documents is commented
upon against each in the sub-paras below.
7.2: List of persons with no ID and no connection with Sec. 6 Market:
[Alleged documents of each name grouped together to highlight the same]
S.No. Name Particulars Pg. No. Observation
1. Shankar Copy of alleged 11 Without any I.D. proof
Receipt No. Challan by Delhi Police for
471005 dated garbage.
03.12.2013 for No address of where it is
Rs. 50/-. booked.
2. Laxmikant Copy of alleged 13 Without I.D. Proof
Receipt No. Challan by Delhi Police for
451684 dated garbage. No address of where
04.09.2013. it is booked.
3. Raghav There is no I.D. Proof to even
connect these documents with
this person.
Copy of alleged 16 Receipt for garbage.
Receipt No.
45672 dated
02.03.2016.
Copy of alleged 17 Receipt for garbage
Receipt No.
30739 dt 9.06.10 18 Receipt for garbage
Copy of alleged
Receipt No. 19 The name on receipt is Raghu
24067 dt. 6.01.11 Paswan
Copy of alleged 20 The name on receipt is Raghu
Receipt No. Paswan
680064 dt.28.3.06
Copy of alleged
dated 20.03.2008
4. Bal Kishan Copy of Voter ID 31
as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 32 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
471041 dated it is booked.
18.01.2014.
Copy of alleged 33 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
668629 dated it is booked.
22.08.2014
Copy of pass 34 Irrelevant document attached
book Corporation to mislead the court.
Bank
5. Surender Copy of alleged 35 No I.D. Proof.
Yadav Receipt No.
055273 dated Address on Receipt is RZ C/8
24.09.2013. Patel Garden
6. Manoj Rao Copy of One side 36 No name. Back side of some
of Voter ID card Voter ID attached in order to
mislead.
Copy of alleged 37 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
668632 dt 22.8.14 it is booked.
Copy of pass 38 Irrelevant document attached
book Corporation to mislead the court.
Bank
7. Madhur Copy of Voter ID 39 Only copy of ID card attached.
Rahman card
Copy of pass 40 No document to show any
book Corporation connection.
Bank
8. Devender Copy of Aadhar 41 Name on Aadhar is different
as ID Proof i.e. Devendra Khetrapal
Copy of alleged 42 Receipt in name of different
Receipt No. person Devi Der. For garbage.
1046714 dated
20.03.2012.
Copy of alleged 43 Receipt in name of Devender.
Receipt No. For garbage.
40003 dated
10.09.2014
Copy of passbook 44 Irrelevant document attached
Corporation Bank to mislead the Court.
9. Gulshan Copy of Aadhar 45 No document, only IDs given.
Sabharwal card
Copy of Voter ID 46 & 48
card
Copy of some 47 Not a document.
photos
10. Shrey Copy of pass 49 No document & no connection.
Khetrapal book Corporation Irrelevant document attached
Bank to mislead the Court.
11. Rinku Copy of Aadhar 58
as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 59 FORGED & FABRICATED
Receipt No. RECEIPT [THREE
210801 dated RECEIPTS OF SAME NO.]
16.01.2013. Challan by Delhi Police for
garbage. No address of where
it is booked.
12. Rahul Copy of Aadhar 60 & SAME DOCUMENT
as ID Proof 63 REPEATED TO MISLEAD
THE COURT
Copy of alleged 61 & FORGED & FABRICATED
Receipt No. 64 RECEIPT [THREE
210801 dated RECEIPTS OF SAME NO.]
16.01.2013. SAME DOCUMENT
REPEATED TO MISLEAD
THE COURT.
Copy of alleged 62 & Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. 65 garbage. No address of where
39331 dated it is booked
15.07.2015 Challan is in the name of Garg
Creations, a shop rather than
any vendor.
SAME DOCUMENT
REPEATED TO MISLEAD
THE COURT.
13. Amit Copy of Aadhar 70
as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 71 FORGED & FABRICATED
Receipt No. RECEIPT [THREE
210801 dated RECEIPTS OF SAME NO.]
16.01.2013. Challan by Delhi Police for
garbage. No address of where
it is booked.
14. Lala Ram Copy of Aadhar 68
as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 69 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
471067 dated it is booked.
10.02.2014.
15. Subhash Copy of Driving 79
Kumar License as ID
Copy of alleged 80 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
471043 dated it is booked.
18.01.2014.
Copy of alleged 81 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
13000 dated it is booked.
16.01.2013
16. Ajay Copy of Voter 84
Kumar card as ID Proof
Jumani Copy of alleged 85 Receipt in name of different
Receipt No. person Sonu. For garbage.
322066 dated
10.09.2007.
Copy of alleged 86 In name of different person
summon dated Sonu. For garbage.
16.11.2010.
Copy of alleged 87 Receipt in name of different
Receipt No. person Sonu. For garbage.
21842 dated
25.11.2010.
Copy of alleged 88 Receipt in name of different
Receipt No. person Sonu. For garbage.
74453 dt 13.01.11
17. Sanjay Copy of alleged 89 Only Summon. No ID and No
Kumar summon dated proof.
03.01.2012.
18. Pappu Copy of Voter 90
card as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 91 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. dated garbage. No address of where
06.03.2014. it is booked.
19. Karam Copy of Voter ID 92 No Proof
Veer Singh from Unnao, UP
Copy of some 93 Not a document.
photo
20. Ravi Copy of Voter 94 THIS PERSON HAS BEEN
card as ID Proof CLAIMED TO BE DEAD, on
27.11.2015, STILL CLAIM
BEING MADE IN HIS
NAME
Copy of alleged 97 Receipt in name of Ravi
Receipt No. dated Chawan. For garbage, etc.
25.01.2010.
Death Certificate 96 No relevancy
of Ravi Chauhan
Copy of Aadhar 95
Card of some
Neetu Chauhan
21. Manish Copy of Aadhar 98
Kumar card as ID Proof
Copy of some 99, Not relevant at all. No
medical 100, explanation has been given.
documents of 101, Clear effort to mislead the
some Shweta 102 Court.
22. Manoj Copy of Voter 103
Kumar card as ID Proof
Copy of alleged
Receipt No. 104 Challan by Delhi Police for
000683538 dated garbage. No address of where
27.05.2015. it is booked.
23. Gaurav Copy of Aadhar 117 Name on Aadhar card Gaurav
Kumar card as ID Proof Bansal
Bansal Copy of Voter 118 Name on card Gaurav
card as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 119 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
211000 dated it is booked.
25.03.2013.
Copy of alleged 120 Receipt in a different name
Receipt No. Pranav Bansal
37825 dt. 25.6.15.
24. Bhupinder Copy of Aadhar 121 Name on card is Bhupinder
Gauhar card as ID Proof Gohar
Copy of alleged 122 Name on Receipt. is
Receipt No. Bhupinder. Challan by Delhi
0329613 dated Police for garbage. No address
14.11.2015. of where it is booked.
25. Manoj Copy of Aadhar 125
Yadav card of Begu
Sarai, Bihar as ID
Copy of medical 126, 127, Not relevant at all. No
documents of 128, 129, explanation has been given.
Manoj Yadav 130, 131 Clear effort to mislead the
& 132 Court.
7.2: That out of these 37 persons Sanjay Bisht and Pankaj Rathor (part of original list)
have accepted that they were never a vendor at Sector-6 market, Dwarka and their
name has been put in the list fraudulently and have given affidavits to this effect,
copies of which are enclosed as Annexure R6/1 & Annexure R6/2 respectively.
S.No. Name Particulars Pg. No. Observation
Bisht 21 [Pg 76 LPA]
Copy of Voter ID
Card
Copy of alleged Location is not related to the
MCD Receipt No. 57 Sec. 6 market. Has given
37824 dated affidavit that he was never a
25.06.2015 of B- vendor of Sector-6 market and
107, DDA Flats his name has been put in the
Pkt 2, sec.7 list fraudulently.
Dwarka
2. Pankaj Name at Sl. No. Has given affidavit that he was
Rathor 26 [Pg 76 of never a vendor of the Sector-6
LPA] market and his name has been
put in the list fraudulently.
7.4: List of alleged documents filed by Appellant with respect to persons
claiming vendor rights:
[Alleged documents of each name grouped to highlight the same]
S.No. Name Particulars Pg. No. Observation
1. Ghanshyam Copy of Aadhar 3 Name on ID Ghanshyam Madan
Card as ID
Copy of alleged 4 Such a certificate issued by
Registration Dept. of Food Safety are w.r.t.
certificate from food safety. At bottom this
11.08.2015 itself states: "This document
doesnot vest any right to the
vendor to vend from the
address shown in the
Registration certificate"
The date of issue is after the
Vendors Act was notified.
Copy of alleged 5 Challan in name of
Tehbazari Receipt Ghanshyam. Contains no
No. 197110 dt address.
19.10.2006 for
Rs.100/-.
Copy of alleged 6 Receipt in name of
MM Court Ghanshyam. Contains no
Receipt No. address.
000921091 for
Rs.100/-
Copy of alleged 7 Receipt in name of
MCD Receipt No. Ghanshyam. For garbage etc.
51434 Address only Sec. 6 Market.
Copy of alleged 8 Receipt in name of
MCD Receipt No. Ghanshyam. For garbage.
77174 dt. 16.3.11 Address only Sec. 6 Market.
Copy of alleged 9 Receipt in name of
MCD Receipt No. Ghanshyam. For garbage.
24055 dated Address only Sec. 6 Market.
06.01.2011
Copy of alleged 10 Receipt contains address as D-
MCD Receipt No. 7/56, Sec. 6 Rohini.
038312 dated
12.07.2012
Copy of alleged 12 Receipt in name of
Receipt No. Ghanshyam. Challan by Delhi
0853210 dated Police for garbage. No address
10.6.2011 of where it is booked.
Copy of alleged 14 Receipt in name of
MCD Receipt No. Ghanshyam. For garbage.
38379 dated Address only Sec. 6 Market.
08.07.2015
Copy of alleged 15 Receipt contains address as D-
Receipt No. 7/56, Sec. 6 Rohini
40547 dated
04.09.2015
2. Jitender Copy of Aadhar 21
Tiwari as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 24 Not existing. Such a certificate
Registration issued by Dept. of Food Safety
certificate from are w.r.t. food safety. At the
02.03.2015 bottom this itself states: "This
document doesnot vest any
right to the vendor to vend
from the address shown in the
Registration certificate"
The date of issue is after the
Vendors Act was notified.
Address on the same is Sec. 6 ,
Dwarka, Rajouri Garden.
3. Avdhesh Copy of Aadhar 23 Address is of Siwan, Bihar
Tiwari as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 24 Not existing. Such a certificate
Registration issued by Dept. of Food Safety
certificate from are w.r.t. food safety. At the
05.03.2015 bottom this itself states: "This
document doesnot vest any
right to the vendor to vend
from the address shown in the
Registration certificate"
The date of issue is after the
Vendors Act was notified.
Address on the same is Sec. 6 ,
Dwarka, Uttam Nagar Rajouri
Garden.
4. Lalmati Copy of Aadhar 25 Wife of Jitender Tiwari (Sl.
Devi as ID Proof No.2)
Copy of alleged 26 Not existing. Such a certificate
Reg. certificate issued by Dept. of Food Safety
from 02.03.2015 are w.r.t. food safety. At the
bottom this itself states: "This
document doesnot vest any
right to the vendor to vend
from the address shown in the
Registration certificate"
The date of issue is after the
Vendors Act was notified.
Address on the same is Sec. 6 ,
Dwarka, Rajouri Garden.
5. Navalesh Copy of Aadhar 27 Address is of Gaya, Bihar
Kumar as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 28 Not existing. Such a certificate
Registration issued by Dept. of Food Safety
certificate from are w.r.t. food safety. At
10.03.2015 bottom this itself states: "This
document doesnot vest any
right to the vendor to vend
from the address shown in the
Registration certificate"
The date of issue is after the
Vendors Act was notified.
Address on the same is Sec. 6 ,
Dwarka, Uttam Nagar Rajouri
Garden.
6. Pankaj Copy of Voter ID 30 Address is of Siwan, Bihar
Tiwari as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 29 Not existing. Such a certificate
Registration issued by Dept. of Food Safety
certificate from are w.r.t. food safety. At
05.03.2015 bottom this itself states: "This
document doesnot vest any
right to the vendor to vend
from the address shown in the
Registration certificate"
The date of issue is after the
Vendors Act was notified.
Address on the same is Sec. 6 ,
Dwarka, Uttam Nagar Rajouri
Garden.
7. Gulshan Copy of alleged 50 For garbage. Address given on
Khurana Receipt No. receipt is only Sec. 6.
013078 dated
18.03.2014.
Copy of alleged 51 Receipt in name of Gulshan.
Receipt No. Challan by Delhi Police for
210888 dated garbage. No address of where
13.02.2013. it is booked.
Copy of alleged 52 Receipt in name of Gulshan for
Receipt No. garbage.
048670 dated
30.04.2013
Copy of alleged 53 Receipt contains address as B-
Receipt No. 65, Subhash Park
055269 dated
24.09.2013
8. Deepak Copy of Aadhar 54 Name on ID is Deepak Kumar
Arora as ID Proof. Arora
Copy of alleged 55
Receipt No. Receipt for garbage.
104003 dated
13.12.2011.
9. Vikas Copy of alleged 66 Receipt for garbage. Address
Kumar Receipt No. only Sec. 6 Market
30209 dated
25.06.2014.
Copy of Aadhar 67 No clear I.D. Proof. Nothing
as ID Proof readable.
10. Harish Copy of Voter 72
Card as ID proof
Copy of alleged 73 Receipt for garbage. Address
Receipt No. only Sec. 6 Market
1044462 dt
03.01.2012.
Copy of alleged 74 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
12941 dated it is booked.
26.12.2012.
Copy of alleged 75 & Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. 76 garbage. No address of where
451728 & it is booked.
summon dated
10.10.2013
Copy of alleged 77 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
471042 dated it is booked.
18.01.2014
Copy of alleged 78 Receipt for garbage. Address
Receipt No. only Sec. 6 Market
30274 dated
25.06.2014
11. Mahesh Copy of Voter 82
Kumar card as ID Proof
Yadav Copy of alleged 83 Receipt for garbage. Address
Receipt No. only Sec. 6 Market
30276 dated
25.06.2014.
12. Ajay Copy of Aadhar 106,
Tiwari card as ID Proof 107
with some
complaint
Copy of alleged Receipt For garbage
Receipt No.
027341dated
16.05.2014.
13. Naresh Copy of Voter 108 Name on card is Naresh
Sharma card as ID Proof Kumar
Copy of alleged 109
summon dated Only Summon.
04.06.2014
Copy of alleged 110 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
471135 dated it is booked.
07.05.2014.
Copy of alleged 111 Receipt For garbage.
Receipt No.
30210 dated
06.06.2014
14. Vinod Copy of Aadhar 112
Prasad card as ID Proof
Copy of alleged 113 Challan by Delhi Police for
Receipt No. garbage. No address of where
12959 dated it is booked.
26.03.2012.
Copy of alleged 114 Only summon.
summon dated
27.08.2011
Copy of alleged 115 Receipt for garbage with add.
Receipt No. as Sec. 6 Dwarka
82090 dt 10.8.11.
Copy of alleged 116 Receipt for garbage
Receipt No.
45771 dated
17.03.2010.
15. Shasanka Copy of Aadhar 123 Name on card is Shasanka
Shekha card as ID Proof Shekhar Sahoo
Shahu Copy of alleged
Receipt No. Name on Receipt of Garbage.
39583 dated is Shushaku Shahu"
22.07.2015.
10. Counsel submits that the documents sought to be relied upon are
irrelevant documents as some of the documents are challans issued by
Delhi Police for storage of garbage. The documents do not connect
with the names of the persons and address is not mentioned. It is also
contended that once the order passed in WP (C) No. 3521/2006 has
attained finality, the matter cannot be reheard and even otherwise the
names of the appellants do not find mentioned in any of the earlier
surveys carried out pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court by
either Chopra Committee or Thareja Committee. Thus, the appellants
are encroachers and cannot be granted any protection.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions.
12. We find that in response to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 6, there is no satisfactory answer to the
submission pertaining to the orders passed in WP (C) 3521/2006
having attained finality. The explanation rendered for not placing
proper supporting documents on record by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that whenever a raid is conducted by the officials of the
respondents, the vendors are left with no option but to run away from
the area with their respective goods, which would otherwise be
confiscated and penalty imposed upon them. There is also no
explanation with regard to documents filed at page no. 247, 249 and
259 of the paper book, where the receipt number is the same, all
particulars remain identical but the receipts stand in the name of Amit,
Rahul and Rinku; except that the appellant association has filed a
police complaint against two out of the three persons, who have
fabricated the receipts. Copy of police complaint has been placed on
record along with CM No. 6238/2017.
13. Thus, the appellants have failed to place on record the documents,
which would repose confidence in the court that the appellants have
been vending at the sites in question since the year 2001. The
appellants are unable to show the vital documents in support of this
plea. The earlier orders passed and the affidavit filed by DDA in WP
(C) 3521/2006 dated 21.09.2006 and 14.02.2008 would show that the
area in question was clear of all encroachments even at that stage. In
case the appellants were vending at the site, which is disputed by the
counsel for the respondent no. 6, the appellants would have
approached this court to safeguard their interest in the year 2006 or
soon thereafter. Thus, a reasonable doubt is created as to whether
these are the same appellants, who were infact squatting at the time
when orders were passed in WP (C) 3521/2006.
14. Therefore, the protection contained in Section 3 (3) would not apply to
the members of the appellant association. Additionally the orders
passed by this Court in WP (C) 3521/2006 cannot be allowed to be
flouted.
15. At this stage, we restrain ourselves from making any further
comments or return a finding with respect to the documents filed by
some of the appellants on record although the same are not above
suspecion or else their rights would be affected in case the members of
the appellant association wish to approach the Town Vending
Committee in support of their pleas for grant of licences and squatting
sites.
16. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present LPA, however we make
it clear that should the members of the appellant association
approached the Town Vending Committee in the prescribed form,
their applications would not be rejected merely because they were not
found vending at the site in question provided, of course, they are able
to place on record supporting documents in support of their plea that
they have been vending since 2001. With these observations, the LPA
and all applications are disposed of.
17. We also direct the statutory bodies to ensure that none of the shop-
keepers encroach upon verandahs or public land. Counsel for
respondent no. 6 also undertakes to the court that none of the members
of the respondent no. 6 association will permit any shop keeper or any
member of the association to encroach upon public land, extend their
shops or encroach upon verandahs or public land. The statutory
bodies are directed to take strict action in case of violation of this
undertaking.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
FEBRUARY 16, 2017
// "sk"
